Procedure for validly ejecting a Board member from a meeting who denies having said anything improper.

[Politicalbrit]

Apologies that this is rather long.

X is elected to the governing Board by the whole membership of a political association, A. The Board adopts RONR into its standing orders. X is one of several members of A to receive, unwillingly, sensitive information from an officer of A about Y, an ordinary member of the association. Y alleges that the sharing of the information was unlawful and takes his complaint to regulator R. Initially the Board is not informed, but X mentions the matter to Board members and the chair of the Board confirms to the Board that R has an open investigation. A week later, at a Board meeting held remotely by Zoom, a member of staff states (orally) that there are no open investigations into association A, mentioning receipt of an email but not reading it out. No further explanation is offered. X says that X is unable to accept that the statement is accurate and asks to see the correspondence. The member of staff refuses to disclose it. The chair does not put the disclosure issue up for discussion. Several Board members in succession speak attacking X, accusing X of having accused the member of staff of lying, and demand an apology. These attacking speeches continue for some time. X writes in the text chat that X cannot accept that the statement is accurate and that the Board must see the correspondence. The chair of the Board, claiming to be applying RONR but not being specific, calls on X to apologise. X denies having said anything improper and refuses. The chair puts to a vote whether X should be ejected. The vote is passed and X’s access to the videoconference is terminated.

I have noted RONR 49:15 on conduct of business in Boards and read all the threads I can find in your forums about ejections of members entitled to be at meetings and I get the impression that no deviation from RONR is permitted, unless by some other rule that overrides RONR, which was not the case here. Your opinions would be appreciated: -

Under RONR, should the chair have put X’s request for sight of the correspondence to the Board for decision? Is the chair unilaterally entitled to reject or ignore such a request?

RONR 61:12 contemplates that the chair may name an offender, after repeated warnings, for ‘obstinate’ or ‘grave’ breach of order, but before taking such action the chair directs the secretary ‘when it begins to appear that it may become necessary’ to ‘take down objectionable or disorderly words’. X had not said that the staffer was lying. It was an imputation by others. X named no one and said nothing about motive. The chair did not direct the secretary to take down any words. Is RONR 61:12 about the words, or about other Board members' particular adverse interpretation of them? Or does something in RONR empower the chair alone to put a particular adverse interpretation on X’s words? Or is this impermissibly putting words in X's mouth that X did not say?

RONR 61:17 applies where the member denies having said anything improper. It states that “the words recorded by the secretary can be read to” the member “and, if necessary, the assembly can decide by vote whether he was heard to say them”. How does that work if the words were not said? Does anything in RONR empower the chair to skip the steps at RONR 61.12 and 61.17?

Thank you in advance for any comments. They are sought because based on this incident the chair sought X’s expulsion from association A for “bullying” and published the allegation that X had committed “bullying”. Meanwhile, Y pointed out to R that R’s investigator was under a mistake of fact, R resumed the investigation and a few months later R upheld Y’s complaint. X (having been an unwilling recipient of the information about Y) was aware of the circumstances giving rise to Y's complaint but not of what the association had told R, and maintains that if the correspondence had been disclosed at the Board meeting as requested, X would have pointed out the mistake. Obviously the power to eject a member should not be open to abuse by the controlling faction.

[Gary Novosielski]

If I understand the situation correctly, the basis for X's ejection (and subsequent expulsion?) was not based upon anything he said or did during that meeting, and if that is true, then nothing in §61 prior to 61:22 applies to the situation.

Instead, the procedures in 61:22 ff. would apply, and should have been used.  These procedures include an investigation and trial.  

 

[Rob Elsman]

When "X" first brought up the matter to the board, the chair missed his opportunity to remind the members of the board that board meetings are not the time and place to deal in personalities and shut down the whole matter.  None of all this falls within the scope of the board's authority, as far as I can tell.

The board's authority to deal with disciplinary matters ordinarily only extends to what is necessary to enable the board, in the immediate situation, to continue meeting and transacting its business in an orderly and efficient manner.  All the other rigmarole is beside the point and inappropriate, besides.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 at 01:47 AM by Rob Elsman

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:34 AM, Politicalbrit said:

Several Board members in succession speak attacking X, accusing X of having accused the member of staff of lying, and demand an apology.

There is no rule in RONR against accusing a staff member of lying, unless the staff member happens to be a member of the assembly (the board in this case).

[J. J.]

On 8/6/2023 at 12:43 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

There is no rule in RONR against accusing a staff member of lying, unless the staff member happens to be a member of the assembly (the board in this case).

It could be considered action that disturbs the well-being of the assembly. 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:34 AM, Politicalbrit said:

Under RONR, should the chair have put X’s request for sight of the correspondence to the Board for decision? Is the chair unilaterally entitled to reject or ignore such a request?

I think there is some gray area here. Had Member X made his request in the form of a motion, then I think there is no doubt that the request should be put before the Board for decision. It's not clear to me, however, that Member X did so. Instead, we are told that Member X "asks to see the correspondence." It's not clear to me, and may not have been clear to the chair, that this was intended as a formal motion rather than as a simple request to the staff member. After the staff member declined the request, the board member certainly could have followed up with a formal motion requiring the correspondence to be turned over, but it does not appear to me that he did so.

If the member had made the request in the form of a motion, the chair could not unilaterally reject or ignore such a request - at least, not simply based on the grounds that the chair believes it should not be granted. If the motion violated some rule (and it is not clear to me what rule this would be), the chair could rule the motion out of order, but even that decision is subject to appeal.

On 8/6/2023 at 9:34 AM, Politicalbrit said:

RONR 61:12 contemplates that the chair may name an offender, after repeated warnings, for ‘obstinate’ or ‘grave’ breach of order, but before taking such action the chair directs the secretary ‘when it begins to appear that it may become necessary’ to ‘take down objectionable or disorderly words’. X had not said that the staffer was lying. It was an imputation by others. X named no one and said nothing about motive. The chair did not direct the secretary to take down any words. Is RONR 61:12 about the words, or about other Board members' particular adverse interpretation of them? The chair did not direct the secretary to take down any words. Is RONR 61:12 about the words, or about other Board members' particular adverse interpretation of them? Or does something in RONR empower the chair alone to put a particular adverse interpretation on X’s words? Or is this impermissibly putting words in X's mouth that X did not say?

In regards to the question about what RONR (12th ed.) 61:12 is about the exact words used or an interpretation of them, I think it's ultimately a little of both.

Certainly, it is conceivable that a member may well strongly imply that he is accusing a person of lying, although he never directly accuses the person of lying. I don't think RONR suggests such an individual is immune from punishment because he did not use such words as "liar" or "fraud." I am not suggesting that is the case in your situation, simply noting that this is possible.

On the other extreme, this certainly does not mean it is appropriate for other members of the assembly to impute any meaning they like to words spoken by a member.

I was not there, and therefore I do not think I am in the best position to make a judgment as to whether the assembly's interpretation of the member's words, in this instance, is a reasonable interpretation.

As Mr. Gerber notes, however, technically RONR does not include any rule against implying a staff person is lying or, for that matter, even directly accusing a staff person of lying. RONR has strong protections regarding what may be said about members of the assembly, but does not contain such protections for persons who are not members of the society.

On 8/6/2023 at 9:34 AM, Politicalbrit said:

RONR 61:17 applies where the member denies having said anything improper. It states that “the words recorded by the secretary can be read to” the member “and, if necessary, the assembly can decide by vote whether he was heard to say them”. How does that work if the words were not said?

As I understand the facts here, the words were in writing, rather than oral, but the words were visible to all members.

It seems to me that while 61:17 assumes words which were spoken orally, it does not prevent the procedures in Section 61 from being used in regard to words written during a meeting, particularly when the words are visible to all members. Indeed, since a record of the words is already kept, it seems even more clear-cut.

What 61:17 is about is determining whether what is alleged to have occurred did, in fact, occur. In this instance, it doesn't seem to me there is any dispute on this matter. Member X does not deny he wrote the words that he wrote. The only dispute is the proper interpretation of those words and whether, when properly interpreted, those words were improper and warrant discipline.

On 8/6/2023 at 9:34 AM, Politicalbrit said:

Does anything in RONR empower the chair to skip the steps at RONR 61.12 and 61.17?

The steps in 61:12 are an essential element of the disciplinary procedures in Section 61 and may not be skipped. In order for disciplinary procedures for offenses occurring during a meeting to commence, the chair must "name" the member and order the Secretary to take down the words used by the member.

"In cases of obstinate or grave breach of order by a member, the chair can, after repeated warnings, “name” the offender, which amounts to preferring charges and should be resorted to only in extreme circumstances. Before taking such action, when it begins to appear that it may become necessary, the chair directs the secretary to take down objectionable or disorderly words used by the member. This direction by the chair, and the words taken down pursuant to it, are entered in the minutes only if the chair finds it necessary to name the offender." RONR (12th ed.) 61:12

What is said in 61:17 involves two parts. They may not be skipped when applicable. But again, I don't think the first sentence (which I think you are concerned with) is applicable here. The words written by the member were already recorded, so it would be rather difficult for the member to claim he did not write them, and it does not seem to me he is claiming that. Rather, the disagreement is about the interpretation of the words and whether the words were improper and warranted discipline.

"If the member denies having said anything improper, the words recorded by the secretary can be read to him and, if necessary, the assembly can decide by vote whether he was heard to say them. On the demand of a single member—other than the named offender, who is not considered to be a voting member while his case is pending—the vote on imposing a penalty must be taken by ballot, unless the penalty proposed is only that the offender be required to leave the hall for all or part of the remainder of the meeting. Expulsion from membership requires a two-thirds vote." RONR (12th ed.) 61:17

Ultimately, it is up to the organization's judgment whether the member's actions warrant discipline.

Edited August 7, 2023 at 01:15 PM by Josh Martin

[Politicalbrit]

On 8/6/2023 at 4:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If I understand the situation correctly, the basis for X's ejection (and subsequent expulsion?) was not based upon anything he said or did during that meeting, and if that is true, then nothing in §61 prior to 61:22 applies to the situation.

Instead, the procedures in 61:22 ff. would apply, and should have been used.  These procedures include an investigation and trial.  

 

Indeed, the ejection from the meeting was not for anything X said or did at the meeting. It was not clear what X was being asked to apologise for. X had not made any accusation of lying either orally or in the Zoom chat. That was imputed. It's doubtful whether the chat in a Zoom meeting is part of the meeting. It's more like a commentary.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/19/2023 at 5:43 AM, Politicalbrit said:

Indeed, the ejection from the meeting was not for anything X said or did at the meeting. It was not clear what X was being asked to apologise for. X had not made any accusation of lying either orally or in the Zoom chat. That was imputed. It's doubtful whether the chat in a Zoom meeting is part of the meeting. It's more like a commentary.

I disagree with the suggestion that the chat feature in a Zoom meeting is not part of the meeting (at least for purposes of this rule) and the implication that members are immune from discipline under Section 61 for what is said in the Zoom chat. The distinction between actions which occur during a meeting and actions which occur outside of a meeting does not have to do with whether those actions are formally part of the meeting (such as words spoken in debate). The reason for the distinction is that for actions which occur during a meeting, all members who are present have witnessed what occurred, so there is not a need for a formal investigation in the manner necessary for actions occurring outside of a meeting.

There certainly are questions as to whether the member should have been disciplined for the particular conduct at issue, however, that is a judgment for the assembly itself to make.

Edited August 19, 2023 at 10:52 AM by Josh Martin

[Politicalbrit]

On 8/6/2023 at 5:43 PM, Rob Elsman said:

When "X" first brought up the matter to the board, the chair missed his opportunity to remind the members of the board that board meetings are not the time and place to deal in personalities and shut down the whole matter.  None of all this falls within the scope of the board's authority, as far as I can tell.

The board's authority to deal with disciplinary matters ordinarily only extends to what is necessary to enable the board, in the immediate situation, to continue meeting and transacting its business in an orderly and efficient manner.  All the other rigmarole is beside the point and inappropriate, besides.

 

The chair himself put the matter on the agenda of the board meeting, though. Hard to argue that the handling of Y's complaint to the regulator was not the board's business.

[Rob Elsman]

Nothing in RONR (12th ed.) empowers the chair to put a matter on an agenda.